158 replies to this topic

[Mehlan]

Quote

Most of the arguments against would be of things along the side of light mechs not being able to shove themselves at enemy mechs. WHICH they shouldn't.

how the heck does one 'shove' themselves at someone else? The issue is not 'shoving', it's walking or running over/into... Several suggestions which have nothing even remotely related to actual 'logic' or physics.

[Earl White]

How about a deliberate collision mechanic, where you have to double tap a direction (e.g. double tap left or right to strafe/dodge) and double tap forwards to start "ramming" which would cause knockdown if it connected.

Edited by Earl White, 11 September 2013 - 04:45 AM.

[stjobe]

Earl White, on 11 September 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

How about a deliberate collision mechanic, where you have to double tap a direction (e.g. double tap left or right to strafe/dodge) and double tap forwards to start "ramming" which would cause knockdown if it connected.

I suggested as much on one of the first pages of this thread; have physical attacks be like regular attacks - you press the button and the 'mech executes the attack:

Press 'p' to make your 'mech throw a punch.
Press 'k' to make your 'mech kick.
Press 'c' to make your 'mech charge straight forward at top speed with a shoulder tackle stance.
Press 'f' to make your 'mech do a DFA at a targeted enemy within range of your jump jets.

Edited by stjobe, 11 September 2013 - 04:57 AM.

[Imperius]

Any light mech pilot here complaing and derailing the topic to its not fair for lights. Is here for self preservation of unbalced gameplay style that they know is wrong but don't want to lose thier imbalanced advantage. It's painfully obvious you're just a group of bad light mech pilots who think you shouldn't have to watch where you run because its too hard for you, otherwise you wouldn't be here derailing the topic and complaining.

If they don't add collisions back then torso twist needs to go and all mechs get = torso twist, then we will see how many assaults can really aim without that limitation. Goodbye Mechwarrior hello MechAssult.

Is that a better solution? I'll be all for it then you can run around me all you want hitting every rock and mech like they don't exsist, and I'll just spin as fast as you run, leg you, then lol, strip you, and walk off till the end of the match.

Sound fair? Didn't think so!

Collisions are part of Mechwarrior, and part of balance in the game you don't like it then leave. Mechwarrior only needs good light pilots that watch where they can run.

So either figure out a way to put them in to punish everyone who runs into walls, rocks, and other mechs; Without allowing too much team grieving and too much penalties. If you hit an object at full doped you should come to a complete stop, take damage, and be stunned for at least 2 seconds.

Edited by Imperius, 11 September 2013 - 05:00 AM.

[Galenit]

stjobe, on 10 September 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Which seems to be the whole (spoken or unspoken) point behind many posts here; to punish lights.

Didnt read?
I should not repeat me, but i cant resist...
.
A 150kph commando has nearly 3 times the force (or kinetic energy) then a 50kph atlas.

You know, the m/s² is the problem...

This discussion is more about not making lights uber and the new masterbowler,
if you look on it from a physical position (position? is it the right word for it?).
And is about adding a importent part to the game that gives more tactical depth and fun.
Its seems stupid to me, that mechs can runtrough each other without nearly any consequences.

Dont know why you interpreted nerfing wishes in it. Maybe Imperius inst wrong?

Edit:

Imperius, on 11 September 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

So either figure out a way to put them in to punish everyone who runs into walls, rocks, and other mechs; Without allowing too much team grieving and too much penalties.

Team grieving is a problem too...
Dont know how to handle it, hardcore i would say, but its a f2p game ...
Maybe counting team knockdowns as teamkill?
Only half the effect on team-collision?
Isnt that easy then teamdamage or -killing, both mechs are involved actively in it.

Edited by Galenit, 11 September 2013 - 06:59 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

Galenit, on 11 September 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Didnt read?
I should not repeat me, but i cant resist...
.
A 150kph commando has nearly 3 times the force (or kinetic energy) then a 50kph atlas.

You know, the m/s² is the problem...

This discussion is more about not making lights uber and the new masterbowler,
if you look on it from a physical position (position? is it the right word for it?).
And is about adding a importent part to the game that gives more tactical depth and fun.
Its seems stupid to me, that mechs can runtrough each other without nearly any consequences.

Dont know why you interpreted nerfing wishes in it. Maybe Imperius inst wrong?

Edit:

Team grieving is a problem too...
Dont know how to handle it, hardcore i would say, but its a f2p game ...
Maybe counting team knockdowns as teamkill?
Only half the effect on team-collision?
Isnt that easy then teamdamage or -killing, both mechs are involved actively in it.

Just reduce C-Bills and XP gained for any Team Damage done, period. Teammates walking in front of you? Check your fire.

A single TK, even accidental, should reduce your earnings to nearly 0 for the match. 200 damage dealt from friendly fire, with or without a kill, should similarly reduce your earnings and XP for the match to nearly 0 unless countered by multiple kills and other bonus rewards offsetting it.

[stjobe]

Galenit, on 11 September 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Didnt read?

I'm all for collisions, I want melee; kicking, punching, charging, DFA - I want all those things. What I do not want is for them to unfairly punish light 'mechs - and I see a lot of posts (note: "a lot" does not mean "all") that basically say they want collisions and knock-downs back because they want lights punished for being hard to hit.

Really, that's what a lot of the posts here boil down to: In the current MWO lights are hard to hit; one way of making them easier to hit is to knock them on their rear lower center torsos, or make them "stunned" for several seconds if they run into something. And yes, that would make them easier to hit, and their thin armour would make that a death sentence, which would in turn practically eliminate lights from the game.

I played with collisions and knock-downs in closed beta as a Commando pilot and I'm not going to willingly or quietly accept that level of grief again, if there's something I can do about it. Most of the time I was seriously damaged before contact was even made with the enemy, just from team-mates blind-siding me, knocking me over (sending me into a 2-5 second 3PV movie of my 'mech where I had zero control) repeatedly. I learned to avoid my team almost as much as I avoided the enemy, and sadly it was prone to foster some very bad team-work spirit: "Should I help that lonely Atlas out? He seems to be struggling against multiple enemies. Nah, he's the dirty Clanner that bowled me over three times at the start of the match snickering about how "lights are useless" and how "it was my fault that I didn't get out of his way" when he ran me over from behind - I think he'll have to manage on his own".

So yeah. As I said, I'd love collisions and physical attacks to be a part of MWO, but it must absolutely not be implemented in a way that unduly punishes lights (or any weight-class), and since I've seen first-hand how terribly broken the last implementation of knock-downs were, I'm a bit leery of just accepting that "collisions need to be in because lights are hard to hit".

Edited by stjobe, 11 September 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

I want my Dragon to be able to kick someone over and then use the claw to rip off their limbs. Yeah. That'd be fun. Put that claw to use. There's no reason we don't have melee yet in a Mechwarrior. Cry Engine can do Melee just fine.

[Syllogy]

When should PGI re-introduce Collisions? When that particular mechanic is built properly.

[Soda Popinsky]

Mister Blastman, on 11 September 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

There's no reason we don't have melee yet in a Mechwarrior. Cry Engine can do Melee just fine.

Here's a reason. Limited coder / artist manpower. I think Bryan Ekman mentioned it's costs about $50,000 per mech developed (coders and artists do need to get paid). Right now the animation is limited to walking/running, aiming, falling & getting up (assuming they've done fall / getting up animations for the mechs post Open Beta). Now you want them to animate kicks, punches, tackles, etc for every chassis?

While that would be great, would you rather see those limited coder / artist resources spent on more mechs? As of now, they seem to be taking a few short cuts, reusing skeletal animations, resulting in out of scale mechs.

The game is primarily a shooter, not a wrestling simulator. While extensive melee would be great, I don't think it should be a priority.

[Mister Blastman]

Soda Popinsky, on 11 September 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Here's a reason. Limited coder / artist manpower. I think Bryan Ekman mentioned it's costs about $50,000 per mech developed (coders and artists do need to get paid). Right now the animation is limited to walking/running, aiming, falling & getting up (assuming they've done fall / getting up animations for the mechs post Open Beta). Now you want them to animate kicks, punches, tackles, etc for every chassis?

While that would be great, would you rather see those limited coder / artist resources spent on more mechs? As of now, they seem to be taking a few short cuts, reusing skeletal animations, resulting in out of scale mechs.

The game is primarily a shooter, not a wrestling simulator. While extensive melee would be great, I don't think it should be a priority.

Nah.

More gameplay, please. We've got enough 'mechs right now. We need:
1. Maps
2. More gameplay

I have 35 mechs at the moment and most of the newer ones don't really appeal to me for various reasons.

Deeper gameplay, though, will make the game even more FUN! Everyone benefits from more gameplay.

[Slash Beastleo]

Anyone knows a date for the come back of collisions? I really like this feature.. It would be cool if we have it at launch.

[John Buford]

Imperius, on 11 September 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

Any light mech pilot here complaing and derailing the topic to its not fair for lights. Is here for self preservation of unbalced gameplay style that they know is wrong but don't want to lose thier imbalanced advantage. It's painfully obvious you're just a group of bad light mech pilots who think you shouldn't have to watch where you run because its too hard for you, otherwise you wouldn't be here derailing the topic and complaining.

If they don't add collisions back then torso twist needs to go and all mechs get = torso twist, then we will see how many assaults can really aim without that limitation. Goodbye Mechwarrior hello MechAssult.

Is that a better solution? I'll be all for it then you can run around me all you want hitting every rock and mech like they don't exsist, and I'll just spin as fast as you run, leg you, then lol, strip you, and walk off till the end of the match.

Sound fair? Didn't think so!

Collisions are part of Mechwarrior, and part of balance in the game you don't like it then leave. Mechwarrior only needs good light pilots that watch where they can run.

So either figure out a way to put them in to punish everyone who runs into walls, rocks, and other mechs; Without allowing too much team grieving and too much penalties. If you hit an object at full doped you should come to a complete stop, take damage, and be stunned for at least 2 seconds.

Ok I have had about enough of your BS. You are here as a Griefer who has lost to lights in his precious Assualt Mech. If you have any questions about this just go back to your Original post Titled "Light Mechs Are Really Getting Out Of Hand." For those who want to read your original post go here http://mwomercs.com/...ng-out-of-hand/ where you complain about Lights. Then when anyone who does not agree with you gets insulted and you get on your High Horse and say something like "Stay on Topic" makes me want to like a Star Wars clip so we can "STAY on TARGET." So using your words you are nothing more than a bad Pilot who can't hit the broad side of a Barn from the inside because its to hard for you so you come here and complain and keep quoteing "Stay on Topic" to keep people from looking at what you really are. Its called blame people of doing what you are so they don't look at you.

[Prezimonto]

stjobe, on 10 September 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

At work, so I have to keep it short this time.

Essentially, if you want knockdowns you have to include a damage model that damages both players, or stun locking becomes too appealing. OR you have give players control over their mech like getting back up (still able to fire or able to get up in stages like prone to kneeling to standing). This damage taken can follow physics and be inequal to a point, it depends on points of contact... pressure per area, ect...

I actually really loved knockdown in closed beta. It gave the game a unique flavor. If your argument is that lights are knocked down too easily and HAVE to get in close to deal damage I argue back that's a completely different game failing. There should be rewards for doing things other than in close skirmishing.

I also agree that I would LOVE kicking and punching. I think it's a great idea. I also think that unless you have a weapon in a mech's fist designed for melee damage you should be risking damage to that appendage and equipment on that appendage. IE... an actual actuated fist vs. an arm ending a cannon.

Actual targeted attacks should do point point damage like an attack. Unless ranged weapons can instigate a knockdown (and firing large weapons while unstable knock you over) I don't think melee attacks should cause a knock down.

I do however want knockdowns, because I thought they were a fun piece of the game, but I think the only way to balance them is through damage or a better recovery system.

Edited by Prezimonto, 11 September 2013 - 02:42 PM.

[Livewyr]

I think knockdowns should be allowed (in violent/high speed collision cases) and in the case of significant weight differences (like a mech weighing 1/3 of another mech..)

I pretty much outlined that in my first few posts.

I think collisions should do (sliding scale) a lot of damage to both mechs, lest griefing be tempting.

Collisions should be a source of immersion, an extreme measure, and another facet of thinking in a thinking man's shooter. Not a griefing tool.

[DaZur]

Livewyr, on 11 September 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Collisions should be a source of immersion, an extreme measure, and another facet of thinking in a thinking man's shooter. Not a griefing tool.

Your first mistake was using "thinking" and "shooter" in the same sentence...

I fully agree... I also agree that if it's implemented too heavy-handed it will be abused. Thus I really like the equal-damage solution as it makes sense...

Newton's law = Every force has and equal and opposite reaction.

+1

[stjobe]

DaZur, on 11 September 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

I also agree that if it's implemented too heavy-handed it will be abused. Thus I really like the equal-damage solution as it makes sense...

Then we arrive at the interesting question of what is "equal"?

10 points of damage is much more severe when applied to a light 'mech than when applied to an assault, so if it was equal damage values, an assault could conceivably "afford" to run over a few lights at the start of the game without much negative effects, i.e. it would be very grief-prone.

Damage based on ones own tonnage? That would be another kind of equal, but think of the tears if a Commando lost 2 points and an Atlas 10 from the same collision. Assault pilot heads would explode all over the place just contemplating it.

Damage based on opponent weight was used in BT, and perhaps that is the one that makes the most sense here as well: A Commando takes 10 damage and an Atlas 2 if they collide; just straight target tonnage divided by 10 (rounded down). If that is deemed to much for collision damage one could go with tonnage / 20 instead; 5 damage to the Commando, 1 to the Atlas. Notice though that this model is not "equal".

Also please notice that the same old problem comes to the surface again; that lights are very fragile. After just two or three of those collisions (and they're sure to happen at the start of the match if my experience is anything to go by) the Commando would be stripped of armour on e.g. a leg or an arm.

And that's before the enemy is even sighted.

Edited by stjobe, 11 September 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[DaZur]

stjobe, on 11 September 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Then we arrive at the interesting question of what is "equal"?

10 points of damage is much more severe when applied to a light 'mech than when applied to an assault, so if it was equal damage values, an assault could conceivably "afford" to run over a few lights at the start of the game without much negative effects, i.e. it would be very grief-prone.

Damage based on ones own tonnage? That would be another kind of equal, but think of the tears if a Commando lost 2 points and an Atlas 10 from the same collision. Assault pilot heads would explode all over the place just contemplating it.

Damage based on opponent weight was used in BT, and perhaps that is the one that makes the most sense here as well: A Commando takes 10 damage and an Atlas 2 if they collide; just straight target tonnage divided by 10 (rounded down). If that is deemed to much for collision damage one could go with tonnage / 20 instead; 5 damage to the Commando, 1 to the Atlas. Notice though that this model is not "equal".

Also please notice that the same old problem comes to the surface again; that lights are very fragile. After just two or three of those collisions (and they're sure to happen at the start of the match if my experience is anything to go by) the Commando would be stripped of armour on e.g. a leg or an arm.

And that's before the enemy is even sighted.

Slippery slope when you begin balancing global damage off of tonnage... If my 100 mech rams your 20 ton mech the 20 "should" be mauled... I don't think equal damage is an irrational compromise.

I'm guessing the plausible argument by the community will be that smaller / faster / more maneuverable mechs should be avoiding hand-to-hand with larger mechs in the first place...

Edited by DaZur, 11 September 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Mehlan]

Focus here on some of OP's statements and note... what he wants, is terrain collision. As I've provided, rudimentary mech collision is currently in the game (despite Op's statements/claims that it isn't). Yes terrain collision, was in tabletop....as was falling, skidding and piloting checks based on terrain/elevation changes (as well as speed impact)... It's my belief you should not have one, w/o the others...elsewise you ARE putting a burden on one class over others. ..and despite his claims, that is what OP keeps focusing on. I think, considering this is a fps..and the changes to it, from tabletop to FPS, it's foolish to insist on it. It encroaches in that 'elite' vs 'casual' players realm that does not need to exist. If there were multiple lights for every other class, the complaints might bear some validity....that however is not the case. Any claims are completely anecdotal, and as evidenced in this thread... virtually no one has even bothered to do any testing either. if it's going to be done, it needs to be done correctly, and extensively tested. It is NOT a simple solution/fix/change.

[Livewyr]

(If an Atlas hits a Jenner at at 20 kph..I see some light damage to the Jenner and Atlas (legs) if an Atlas hits a Jenner at 60 kph.. that Jenner was not aware of his surroundings, or was sitting still...probably both. Light mechs *would* have to watch where they're going as much as others but the consequences would be greater to them for error.. it's one of the trades for being fast and agile..)

Nb4 "Assault Lover!" : Assault mechs already have to be very aware of their strategic situation.. unlike a light mech, if one finds himself in a bad location.. he's probably not getting away. (A light mech has the lovely "warp speed" getaway.)

Mobility Trade-offs.